Pages

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Two For the Price of One: A Conservative President and an Extinct Republican Party!

If a republican (preferably a conservative) was smart and perceptive they would recognize that the third party is ripe for the picking. Now.

A perfect storm.

They would recognize that no one wants to vote for a Republican next election. Why should they? Voters gave Republicans a historic victory and what do they get in return? A Republican party that promotes the Democrats' agenda.

No one wants to vote for Democrats either. Why should they? Simple: Obama's eight years.

If a Republican wants to distinguish themselves from the pack of sixteen, they should declare third party. Soon.

It is irrelevant that third parties in the past have not done well. But the perfect-storm present conditions will challenge that status quo.

My favorite candidate is Bobby Jindal. I would like him to run third party. Trump will probably run third party but I want him to continue to ruffle the Republican party.

If a conservative runs third party, I believe we will get two for the price of one: a conservative president and an extinct Republican party.

Jeb, Kasich, Boehner and McConnell all support illegal immigration, entitlements, ACA, gov't bloat. They've been bought out by the "donor class" (ex. the US CoC). They've sold us out, even if it means our sovereignty as voters taken away from us, and our country imploding.

Trump (and to a lesser extent Jindal) are the only ones saying the right things about illegal immigration. But Trump is throwing a monkey wrench into the Establishment GOP's plans, which is a good thing.

"Jeb, Kasich, Boehner and McConnell all support illegal immigration, entitlements, ACA, gov't bloat. They've been bought out by the "donor class" (ex. the US CoC). They've sold us out, even if it means our sovereignty as voters taken away from us, and our country imploding."

i) At this stage, Jeb and Kasich aren't completive. That may change, but it's not as if one of them is predestined to become the nominee. Both are trailing more conservative contenders.

ii) Boehner and McConnell were elected and reelected by voters in their respective states. So the problem is with their constituency. How do you propose to solve that?

"Trump (and to a lesser extent Jindal) are the only ones saying the right things about illegal immigration."

Robert, "saying the right things about illegal immigration" is meaningless if the candidate lacks credibility. Don't be a chump for Trump.

On illegal immigration, Trump is apparently talking out of both sides of his mouth:

I'm reminded of the internet meme that says, "There is a Bush and a Clinton running for President. A Jurassic Dinosaur Movie is Number 1 in the box office and a Terminator movie is coming out next month. WHAT YEAR IS THIS???"

GOP won big last November. But now there is widespread anger at its betrayal of those who elected it. Not sure of the exact numbers, but this might not be a question of needing more conservative voters, but of simply finding someone who won't stab the majority in the back.

What "betrayal" do you have in mind? Congressional Republicans lack veto-proof majorities, especially in the Senate. Moreover, law enforcement depends on the good will of the Executive branch to respect the Legislative branch.

They could have at least passed bills and forced Obama to go on record as having vetoed them. McConnell could have preserved Reid's measure to end filibuster and pass bills with just a majority. They could be better about introducing bills to defund things like ACA, Planned Parenthood. They could be more vocal than they have, given that they have majorities in both houses. And the Iran deal. It feels like they have just largely stepped into line with whatever Obama wants, even though they are the lawmakers.

Steve, I think that a third party would add pieces, such as blacks, Hispanics, Reagan Democrats. The Republican party is too corrupted bought off by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other RINO lobbyists.

Alan, we already have a third party. Indeed, we have multiple third parties. But the groups in question haven't coalesced into your preferred option. How do you propose to make that happen? It's not as if you can compel all the right people to band together, and exclude all the wrong people from participation.

"They could have at least passed bills and forced Obama to go on record as having vetoed them."

Since Obama is term-limited, what difference would that make?

The problem with Boehner and McConnell is not, in the first place, the national party they represent. Rather, it comes down to local politics. Voters in Ohio and Kentucky continue to elect and reelect both men. It's a state issue, not a national issue.

Nothing prevents a more conservative Republican from running against them in the primaries. Likewise, nothing prevents a conservative candidate from running against them as an independent. Those options are already available. Voters choose to elect and reelect politicians like Boehner and McConnell despite competition. It's not as if the alternatives haven't been tried before.

Thing is, given the complete capitulation of the GOP to this administration, it's like the Monty Python Life of Brian scene where Palin is getting stoned to death for saying the tetragrammaton. He says it again, and Cleese, the Pharisee says, "You're only making it worse for yourself". Palin responds "worse? How can it get any worse? Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah!"

At this point it's a joke for the GOP to think they can threaten us with Hillary or Sanders. They essentially stand for the same thing.

Notice that Alan keeps ignoring contrary documentation he's already been given, such as in the comments section of the thread here. He tells us what American voters supposedly want and supposedly will do, but with no documentation. Supposedly, Alan knows the situation better than every or just about every political analyst across the spectrum. But why should we believe that, if he isn't substantiating his claims? If he's outnumbered, and the people disagreeing with him have better credentials, why are we supposed to side with Alan?

Robert Fisher follows up by telling us that "They [Republicans and Democrats] essentially stand for the same thing." For a refutation of that obviously false claim, see here. The post I just linked is about John McCain and Barack Obama, but the same principles apply. The sources I cite there can be multiplied many times over, and the statistics and other relevant data I cited for McCain and Obama can also be provided for Jeb Bush, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, etc.

Jason, you and other party loyalists assume that a third party will not attract democrats to vote for a conservative. I have talked to too many people who are fed up with both parties and would vote for a third party, even if he or she were a conservative. The Republican party is dead to me—and a host of other conservatives. The establishment and big biz donors control the Republican party. A third party is prime for the taking.

My next post will be on "The Myth that Trump is for Himself." This is false mantra perpetuated by those who do not understand the real sentiment out there. Actually he has nothing to lose! It is Republicans that are not for us, but for their donors.

You just ignored the contrary evidence I cited and brought up some unsubstantiated anecdotes in support of your own position. As I asked Robert Fisher in another thread, would you take the same approach toward a subject like the Bible or Christian origins? Would you agree with a skeptic of Christianity who relied on the same sort of emotionalism, appeals to undocumented anecdotes, highly speculative theories that are tremendously unlikely upfront, and ignoring of large amounts of contrary evidence?

You say that the Republican party is "dead to you". That sort of comment, combined with your other behavior, comes across as the sort of immature anger I addressed in another thread.

You refer to whether Trump is "for himself". The vast majority of the problems with his candidacy don't have much to do with that issue, so you wouldn't be accomplishing much even if you established that he isn't for himself.

We need to keep in mind that the differences between the parties aren't just measured by what legislation the Republican Congress passes. The differences are also measured by non-legislative actions of the Republican Congress, such as inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress, what they prevent Obama and other Democrats from doing, what Republican governors do, what Republican state legislatures do, what positions Republicans advocate when addressing the media and in other contexts, etc. The idea that a Democratic Congress would act the same as this Republican one is absurd and is disproven by the first two years of Obama's administration. When you take all of that evidence into account, the differences between the two parties are clearly large. It's the difference between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The difference between a party that passes Obamacare and one that opposes it. The difference between governors like Bobby Jindal (who Alan and Robert have referred to favorably) and ones like Jerry Brown. To claim that there's no significant difference between the two parties is astonishingly irresponsible.

At this point in the discussion, the goal posts usually get moved. Remember, the issue isn't whether the Republicans are perfect or whether they've done a lot that's wrong. They're not perfect, and they've often been wrong. Who denies that? The fact remains that the Republicans also have done a lot that's right, they're far better than the Democrats, they're more conservative than the average American, and there's no reasonable third party alternative on the horizon.